A British soldier attacked in London?
Is it a "terrorist" who attacked him? Or is it a covered operation?
Now that we know that the horrors committed in Syria are signed indirectly by the US, now that we know that the "rebels" are mercenaries paid by Saudi Arabia, Qatar, the US, England... Israel included, now that we know that the UNO is against any US intervention, knowing that NATO is burning of the desire to enter the conflict that they generated isn't it the perfect way to initiate it? A good British (is part of our allied) soldier (perfect target, he is "saving" us from deliquescence) is savagely (if it was not the case, we wouldn't be outraged) was murdered in the name of Islam. Isn't it the best reason for us to butcher the remnants of a baath democracy in Syria. As if we were living in one.Have you seen the video of these two animals? Who cares why they did it why didn't anybody standing around kill them?
Probably because London is not populated by high street shoppers always at the ready to apply lethal force.
And they are disarmed for their own protection....
They could have carried cleavers and knives like the murderers if they wanted to. They chose not to. That's their choice.
Because butcher knives and meat cleavers are reasonable things to carry around, I got ya.
Why not? It's what the murderers used, and it is freely available and legal. If anyone on that street wanted the option to use deadly force, they had it.
"Why not? It's what the murderers used"
Yeah, its what the murderers used. I think I understand you a little better.
They also carried guns.
Moving along
Must make you feel so good that Lee Rigby wasn't shot but hacked to death!
Real win for the gun control crowd huh?Would you like to address the point I was actually making? You asked why no one killed them. I reply because they probably chose not to go around equipped to use lethal force. If you want to talk about gun control, maybe start a thread on that subject? Because at no point did that have anything to do with what I was saying. I though maybe you have not been to London and did not know that most people there never carry any kind of weapon.
Like I said a real win for the gun control crowd!
You must be aware that they are disarmed there for their own protection.
Now the bad guys can hack people to death because they are the only ones carrying guns.
Ain't gun control grand?Lie Detector, your effort to turn the murder of a British soldier into a pro gum rant is contemptible, especially as he was murdered as a direct result of British involvement in US interventionist policies.
I deplore gum!
His murder is a direct result of two crazy people who thought it was a good idea.How did they know he was a solider? Heard he was wearing civilian clothing.
I assume they saw him leaving the nearby barracks.
Add to that that soldiers even in civvies usually look like soldiers and that they probably had been following him before hand, I don't have much of a problem thinking that they were sure that he was a soldier.
He was murdered as a direct result of the UK's policies on immigration and gun control. One of them had a revolver and reportedly fired it at the police, resulting in him blowing his thumb off from what I read.
And people just standing around as the poor boy lie in the street, the murderers standing right there, and none of these "men" did a bloody thing. They would have been beat to death had they done something like that around here, more probably confronted by more than one CCW holder. And when they made a move with their knifes inside the 21' reactionary gap, BANG! End of problem.Knives are also controlled in the UK, carrying one can result in prison.
UK residents have come to depend on the police and the law for protection, the fact that it doesn't work is insignificant, they have become accustomed to spectating acts of violence with the belief that the police will deal with it.
Would i have reacted differently? I don' really know.
One report says they tried to hack off his head, something that is associated with the muslim belief that no head no entry to heaven, the radicalisation of young muslim converts is nothing new in the UK.Doesn't work! Then how do you account for the fact that in over 60 years I have never been subjected to, or witnessed, an act of violence from a stranger?
One report against an eye witness account, from the woman who went to help, that said no attempt had been made to behead him!Statistically John you are in the plus column and long may it last.
I have worked in the security industry for 26 years and both been the victim of and witnessed violent attacks upon the person. in each case the police came after the event and the law did not affect the outcome of the incident.
It may be that he didn't suffer the attempt of a beheading, we wont know until the results of a post mortem are made public.
Without doubt the two perpetrators were Islamic extremists.Statistically, amongst my friends and acquaintances I am the norm.
I suspect that the word of a reliable witness is more trustworthy than a hate mongering tabloid newspaper.
And what has removed your doubt that the two perpetrators were Islamic extremists?Their history John denotes they are Muslim extremists.
I don't have any doubt that they were Muslim extremists, they told the world they were while holding a butcher knife and meat cleaver in blood soaked hands after hacking a man to death.
They said "we are Muslim extremists"!
Funny, that didn't appear in any transcript I've seen.Not too quick to grasp the obvious?
Thats sad.Its not jumping to conclusions when they tell you why they did something. What exactly is hard to understand about that?
Oh yeah, they were actually Islamaphobes pretending to be radical Islamists to besmirch all Muslims.
I forgot Inspector Clouseau.Yes, they told us they did it because they were sick of us murdering women and children.
Then they should quit shielding themselves with women and children.
And death in war is not murder.The women and children in Afghanistan and Pakistan and Iran have not, as far as I'm aware, declared war on anybody.
Don't know, nevertheless, death in war is not murder.
We do not intentionally seek women and children out for killing as policy. Death is a part of war, terrorists on the other hand do seek women and children out and intentionally kill them then have the gall to whine about it.Oh, so you now have intelligent drones that can tell the sex and status of targets!
And like I said, when did any of those countries declare war on us?First, I didn't say a drone could do that.
Second, you actually said "The women and children in Afghanistan and Pakistan and Iran have not, as far as I'm aware, declared war on anybody."
Not "when did any of those countries declare war on us?"OK then I'll ask the question when did the women and children in Afghanistan and Pakistan and Iran declare war on us?
!! you claimed that as we were at war, the death of women and children was OK.
I didn't say it was ok I said it wasn't murder.
Would you mind showing me where I said it was ok? Bet you can't.OK, the implication was there - killing the enemy is not murder, even it is innocent women and children. Why make that distinction if it isn't OK with you?
As a matter of policy the United States does not target women and children in fact it goes out of its way to not harm innocents in this war! The enemy who hides behind innocents and targets them are the ones that your anger should be directed at.
However it is not, and in fact you have tried very hard to make the aggressors the victims.
When people die in war it is not murder.
War was declared on the United States on September, 11, 2001 and we have responded with great restraint as far as I'm concerned.
I favor a salt the earth response, destroy everything that moves, much like we did in WW2.
Aren't you glad I'm not in charge?Why don't you join the jihadists?
You feel for them so deeply, I think its much more humane to end the war than continue it.
My way of ending it would be to destroy everything and let those who do survive think about the next time they want to murder Americans.The Christian persecution of Muslims precedes your country by hundreds of years.
You just took it up a notch or two.
And they found one, hacked him to death and both shot for their trouble.
Shortest Jihad in history.
In their lands? Where is their lands? They are British from immigrant stock from countries not considered as muslim nations. Are all Muslims murdering people in the street in the UK then John or is it just the extreme ones that do it?
Ask them.
I'm not their spokesman, just repeating what they said.
Michael Adebolajo appeared in court after reportedly preparing to train and fight with Somali militant group al-Shabaab in November 2010 (BBC News)
Mr Adebolajo is said to have attended demonstrations of the now-banned Islamist group al-Muhajiroun. (BBC News)
Another potentially significant event was Adebolajo's arrest in 2010 in Kenya close to the border with Somalia. Kenyan authorities say they believe he was preparing to train and fight with the al-Qaida-linked Somali militant group al-Shabaab. (The Guardian)
That is the man we deported to the UK in 2010 after discovering he is among Islamic radicals who were recruited to train as Al Shabaab in Somalia three years ago.’ (The Mail)
Islamic extremists as i said.
"reportedly" - "is said" - "potentially" - "say they believe". And that's your proof!
Fortunately hear say evidence is not usually accepted in a UK court of law.He seems to be the perfect scapegoat as were the Boston marathon presumed killers, as was Oswald for Kennedy but the problem is that all of those presumed killers had a tie to their intelligence services, how can you explain that? And after, such impressive resume, why are they set free without being tracked?
The answer is for silverspeeder.Scapegoats don't usually have knives and guns and blood on their hands. Although i suppose the security services could have paid him and then paid all the witnesses and the cameramen and the police officers etc etc.
I wonder how many of you have ever come across a radicalised Muslim brother?When I look at the scene, the people around him seem to be quite calm for a scary criminal. The crazy ones are always the ones on tv. Have you ever met one, obviously no and suddenly thanks to tv we are meeting them all! Where were they hidden those pigs? Is it the way you are thinking about them? Why wouldn't they simply be criminals like the ones who perpetrated spree killings in the US? Do you emphasize on his religion? Do you say those radical christians?
I don't believe what they feed me. You do. I wish people were more self-criticizing.Actually I have come face to face with them, I live in a city well renown for radicalised Muslims some which are now serving sentences for terrorism. I even worked with one who was picked up by the Americans in Afghanistan he was from West Bromwich and had never been to Afghanistan before, last I remember he was shouting about fighting for his lands as well.
The ones in the US didn't declare they were Christians fighting a cause did they?
So let me get this straight, you believe the didn't kill him and it was all set up to make Muslims look bad?"Do you emphasize on his religion?"
He emphasized his religion, its funny, almost a week later and you are still trying to claim this terrorist isn't a terrorist.In what way is it funny? Him, a terrorist? It is funny. What about a decoy? It seems more realistic.
Same terrorists than the ones in Boston, right? Same ages, same religion, same ties with the intelligence services...? How many coincidences do you need before criticizing?
"One report against an eye witness account, from the woman who went to help, that said no attempt had been made to behead him!"
You are bound and determined to excuse terrorists aren't you?No but I feel no need for scaremongering.
There is a world of difference between excusing and keeping facts straight.I think that a terrorist wielding a butcher knife and meat cleaver and hands covered in blood from a man he just hacked to death is scary.
So if that is scary enough why perpetuate the rumour that he was beheaded?
You quoted that in your efforts to make me look as if I was appeasing the killers.
Tell me how you think I'm appeasing the killers.
It's illegal in the UK to carry an offensive weapon. That means not only guns and knives, but also anything which can be used as a weapon.
Those animals, as you rightly, underlined it, we are financing them, aren't we? Or are you going to deny the horrors we are committing now in Syria? We (the US intelligence I guess) successed in outraging "lie detector". Isn't it the response expected for such action. That every person reacts emotionally versus rationally. But whose interest is it to worsen the situation in the Arab? The US and its faithful cohort to strike any strong opiniated country. It's been two years now that we are trying to legitimize our intervention in Syria in vain. Russia and China are on the lookout, otherwise all the civilians would have been dead by now.
The picture of my profile is in remembrance of all the children we are killing by our silence (she's from Palestine) or our indifference/denial (like in Syria).Who is we? The U.S. Government? Then attack the head of that government and leave innocent people alone!
Aren't the people who voted for the government responsible for their government's action? Then if they disagree why aren't they protesting? It is one way for me to protest. Nobody is innocent, one day or another we have to take a side. Who is innocent?
As for your answers, you are like most of the people, you are avoiding the subject. If it is the case why are you pretending answering?Really think protesting is going to stop anything? All attacking innocent people does is assure that other innocent people will be attacked. The terrorist was right yesterday when he said your government doesn't care about you, so why then attack people standing on a sidewalk, its not going to cause the British government to quit doing what it does. What it will do is cause British soldiers to kill MORE Muslims and the cycle continues.
Didn't it stop the Vietnam war? When the people decides to stop anything it succeeds. But I guess we are immersed in an unusual form of lethargy.
First, the Boston marathon, then the killing in London, where will it be next? Spain? It reminds me of Sept11 in the US, then the bombing in London (involving MI6) to finish with explosions in Spain. Am I being a fantasist to draw such parallel?
As horrendous as this murder is, because all are horrendous- this is yet another excuse for the balmy, right wing press in this country to perpetuate Islamophobia.
Every week, two women die in the Uk at the hands of men. We only ever hear about it when it's an honor killing. Hundreds of kids die after joining gangs, we only ever hear about it when the need to tame our feral youth becomes a political hot potato. Until recently, we only heard about the grooming and abuse of young, vulnerable girls when the perps were of Asian origin. And so it goes.
But the fact remains, unless there have been new updates which I have missed today, that as yet there has been no link or factual reporting to say the perps belonged to any kind of terror org.Does somebody have to belong to a terror group to commit a terrorist attack?
Every murder is an act of terror, every violent attack is an act of terror- but that doesn't mean that all perps are Muslim fundamentalists- the press, in this country, would like to paint them as such before the facts have even emerged. That's my contention.
But this guy gave a mini interview espousing his reasons for hacking this guy to death. It isn't speculation when they tell you why!
But is it beyond all reason that an insane Islamaphobe could commit such an atrocity and blame it on Islam?
Two men? Is that the theory you're working on?
No, I'm not working on any theory.
I'm avoiding jumping to conclusions.I think what you are doing is trying your very best to find an alternative to radical Islam even though the suspects said why they did it. It is not jumping to conclusions when the suspect TOLD us why he did it.
But I'm open to the possibility that somebody who would think nothing of murdering another human being might just not be totally trustworthy.
Not trustworthy is just the beginning of what they are, the other thing they are is Muslim.
But that doesn't mean that he represents Islam, does it? Does every man that feels he has to control and beat his wife represent all men? Does Brevik represent every Conservative, white Christian?
No, but nobody said that either. In fact most politicians go out of there way to say just the opposite.
I'm afraid that the sensationalist press in this country have made such assumptions, all unfounded until we know the facts- but that doesn't seem to stop them, or the swarms of ill informed islamophobes jumping on the band wagon.
That may be, the term islamaphobe is kind of strange, why is it that "phobe" is added to words? If I told you I didn't like homosexuals does it follow that I have an irrational fear of them?
It would follow that you have an irrational dislike of them, but where does that dislike stem from?
Then homophobe wouldn't be appropriate but I'm sure it would be used. I don't dislike homosexuals irrationally or otherwise.
I think, and this is just my opinion, that there are factions in society who dislike Muslims for reasons which are understandable, although I don't agree that all muslims should pay the price for a bunch of extremists. I guess, if you have a family member or friend who was killed, traumatized or maimed by 9/11, 7/7, the dislike is not irrational because it stems from pain and anger. But, unfortunately, there are others who dislike Muslims because they are "different."
I'm speaking as someone who lives in a multicultural city and has friends of different ethnicity and religion. I know a fair few few Muslims, quite well. They are my neighbours and friends, peaceful, community minded and other than abstention from alcohol are just like me, not different at all.
They too, abhore the violence and extremism, and I hate to see these people get so much bad press and meet with so much hostility, when they simply don't deserve it.
If I could give an example of the ignorance of some of the haters. A couple of years ago, my local shop had their windows put through. Graffiti smeared on the walls of the shop "Go home you dirty Fing jidhadists" The thing is, the owners are Sikhs.
But in the eyes of the ignorant, they are brown and "different" the hatred is illogical and possibly does stem from sensationalism and fear. Hence the "phobe"
Excuse you.......or maybe not?........
Are you blaming the U.S. and/or Britian for the Islamic terrorists' acts?Who else then? The Boston marathon first killing Americans, then one brit in London. Aren't you outraged? Wasn't it their goal? Both perpetrated by "muslims". One massacre was linked to the FBI and the second hit a soldier (investigations in progress I guess). The killer definitely researched very well his victim. When muslims have access to sophisticated weapons (confer Syria), it doesn't surprise you that in both cases knives and a cooker pressure were used?
London has cameras. How long does it take to an unexperienced killer to track one's victim? Several months? And they are telling me that his behavior was not suspicious? His ethnic type should be enough to raise suspicions in a time where every muslim is a potential danger to western societies.I think the News said Britain HAD been tracking the two killers for about.....two years.
What are you doing? Is this a conspiracy theory you're proposing? ...That the U.S. and Britain are setting up the terrorist attacks?
Honestly, I think if the Boston massacre had been set up by the government, they would've kept the bombers' Mom from speaking on public television. Don't you? She would've been a loose end that needed to be done away with. Oh but wait...........maybe she was a fake, dreamed up so that all Muslims would look bad!
And even though I can rightly picture the current Administration in America doing almost anything to keep the power in its greedy hands, I don't think even Obama has the ability to think up that complicated a plan. Why? Because his wimpy wrist and forked silver tongue are too busy inciting division and unrest on regular citizens & pushing pro-Islam propoganda; he wouldn't take a chance on it backfiring on his beloved religion. AND that kind of perpetuation that it would take to pull off such a hoax would require connection with a lot of different American groups like the secret service, FBI, etc., even some small local police forces, and I don't believe ALL of those are corrupt.
But hey, there's a whole list of people who've been either killed or supposedly killed themselves after specific occurences and scandals during his terms, so indeed there's some reason to believe he's got some kind of force protecting his doings from detection and prosecution. What that force is, I'm not sure.
There are theories brewing as to what motivates terrorists to harm people of other countries. Nothing solid but they are definitely looking into common denominators.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rd8cRvZZv44On the surface the motivation of these two is pretty clear, they are fed up with our soldiers killing their women and children.
Ah yes the ever popular liberal answer, "it's our fault, we deserve it" forget about the fact that people are responsible for their own actions, and Muslim extremists do the same thing to everyone who disagrees with them. But like the video says, it couldn't be because they are Muslim. Nope, that's a religion of peace.
Are you suggesting that all Muslims are inherently violent and prone to actions of terrorism?
I didn't say that at all. Quite trying to paint me as an Islamaphobe.
So, Muslim extremists are extremists because they are Muslim. Or, are they extremists because they have a warped view of the world (possibly through their experiences) and are like so many others that commit atrocities, devoid of any compassion for others?
They are extremists because of their leadership, and there are a lot of leaders who want to see their caliphate come to fruition. And yes I think it is completely insane that our government sold F-15 fighter jets to the Muslim brotherhood in Egypt,
There may be many reasons why they are extremists. It's a bit too simplistic to suggest that there is only reason- their leadership, don't you think? This is complex.
I wasn't talking about Egypt, Onusonus, see the link I've posted below.Was it insane when Reagan sold enormous quantities of arms to the Taliban?
For fighting against the communists? Absolutely not. Better dead than red.
Looks like the Taliban is doing its best to fulfil your wish.
Not anymore now are they? In fact Muslim countries are working with commies in order to destroy Western civilization because they know that communism is the most effective method used to control a populace.
Like you said, better dead than red, and the Taliban still work towards that goal.
Sure. And Hamas (who supports and is supported by code pink), and the Muslim brotherhood, and the Taliban all hate each other. But they will sort that all out among themselves after they have killed everyone else who gets in the way of their caliphate.
It's a toss up isn't it? Mad mullahs or mad Americans!
Tough decision, people who intentionally go after unarmed citizens, shoot at people in crowded streets, set off bombs in crowded streets, and at public events, hack unsuspecting citizens to death, chop off the hands and heads of infidels, intentionally murder women and children, kidnap unsuspecting civilians and murder them on television, and parade their bodies through the streets, stone homosexuals.
Or Americans.
Tough choice.American soldiers also go after unarmed citizens, shoot at people in crowded streets and at public events, and intentionally murder women and children.
But it's okay if we do it, because we're the heroes of this story and we can do no wrong!You been there and have seen this firsthand? Are you claiming this is U.S. policy?
Non- responsive.
You been there and have seen this firsthand? Are you claiming this is U.S. policy?Have you?
Whether it's policy or not doesn't stop it from happening.Have I? Yes.
Whether it's policy or not doesn't stop it from happening. You haven't said how you know its happening.
In Haditha over 30 people were killed, shot point blank, a 1 year old girl, shot four times, a 3 year old girl shot twice in the head, a four year old boy shot three times in the back, a five year old year old girl shot numerous times, an 8 year old boy shot so many times it was first thought his remains were just gore from other victims.
Most of them were handcuffed and kneeling when shot including the children
By US troops.
Then we covered it up until it was revealed by wikileaks documents.
Most of those responsible faced no consequences, some were fined.
But we are the good guys even though some US soldiers do this but they are the bad guys even though some radical Muslims do similar?
Oh there is definitely no double standard here. There are none so blind...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haditha_killingsA. THOSE DOCUMENTS WERE DOCTORED
B. THAT INFORMATION WAS OBTAINED ILLEGALLY
C. THEY WERE ASKING FOR IT
D. YOU'RE LYING
Predict Lie Detector's response!I think you're probably right so I will answer in advance :p
We know the documents are genuine because the courts confirmed as much when people were fined on their basis.
Yup the information was obtained illegally, that doesn't change a thing about the facts.
Those children and infants sure were asking for it. By all accounts the families involved where very moderate and opposed to violence by radicals. They were killed because they happened to live near a road that US troops frequented.
Factual documental evidence proves it, its not an opinion it's simple fact.
Still isn't policy!
One guy convicted of dereliction of duty with all of that evidence?Covering it up sure was policy, not punishing those responsible was too. Terrorists don't even have official policy so obviously they can;t be guilty of anything except as individuals by that logic.
Yup despite all the evidence there was no justice for the murdered children... because we are the good guys obviously
Now if one of their family members after burying all their innocent family including the pieces of the one year old that could be scraped together off the floor decided to attack a soldier or place a bomb then obviously that proves radical Muslims are bad and we are good.
Such a ridiculous stance.If the evidence was so strong then why no convictions?
Lots of convictions in Abu ghraib.
The military doesn't seem to mind convicting the guilty.They don't seem to mind convicting the innocent either, though it is a lot less messy just to execute them.
Abu Graib was just too hard to ignore with direct photographic evidence of the crimes.
Failing that they will cover it up quite nicely, the government documents released by wikileaks prove they knew the marines were guilty and didn't want to make that public.But the link you gave said there was evidence.
You said this.."Factual documental evidence proves it"
Nothing proven other than dereliction of duty apparently.
Because convictions would mean the average American would have to realize the military is corrupt, and could lose faith and recruitment would be down.
Then why convictions in Abu ghraib? Sort of blows that theory.
The difference is if Americans do it, they are court marshaled. When Jihadists do it they are promised 72 virgins in heaven.
The only difference is that the US are soldiers and the others are mercenaries. Didn't you know onusonus?
What does court-martialled mean? A jury of their peer? Our boys did what was right under such circumstance? BS.
Right Americans going to prison for war crimes. This is called justice. Terrorists in Arab countries being treated like heroes. This would be injustice.
Hard to differentiate? I know, I know. You'd have to do a liberal zombie data dump.Manning who is a real hero was jailed followed by our partial mainstream media but I've never heard anything about the dogs that peeed on Afghan corpses or the ones that killed Iraqi families? Were they punished? Or were they given a short sentence to the local US spa?
They are terrorists and we are not? It makes sense. Then what are we doing in their countries? Their armies are not in our?Except that would be laughably and typically wrong.
Many US soldiers commit atrocities, hardly ever are they actually punished and we still call our soldiers heroes, after the attacks in Benghazi Libyan citizens (this is a hardcore Muslim country) were so angry that they stormed the houses of known militia members all over the country threw them out and killed many of them the militia was then immediately ordered by the government to surrender all weapons and they had to go into hiding to avoid being murdered and yet we still vilify Muslims, it's preposterously hypocritical.
Speaking from ignorance as usual.Hey man that's just hate speech. Benghazi was a long time ago. What difference does it make at this point?
Benghazi was a long time ago. That's what I call a short or a selective memory. The secession war was a long time ago. Benghazi belongs to our recent past. It is so convenient isn't it?
I agree. Perhaps people should be held accountable for such a blatant failure in leadership.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tz2FlOwgp9A
Still, I think it's best to forget about their incompetence, and instead reward them with the next presidential bid.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AR3XTOjZPfgWas your voice as loud when Bush had 3000 Americans killed for his father's interests?
Was that before or after you flew to Never Never land?
Obviously you hid yourself in an irrational sentence.
Why would one be accountable and the other no? What sense of justice do you show us? Obama did it, he is guilty. Bush did it, he is guilty too. It is my justice. My choice of president is not above the law. Neither yours. There's no prescription for yours.Sorry, but in order to make that conclusion you need this thing called evidence.
Well, we have the fact that everybody from the top down knew exactly what was happening, where it was happening and whose lives were in imminent danger, and we had people who were well equipped and at the ready to defend their lives who were one hour away from the fighting, along with aircraft and C-130's. and we know for a fact that they were told to stand down.
We know for a fact that the president was aware of the situation and did absolutely nothing, and after seven hours of two Marines fighting a platoon of terrorists, they were murdered, along with an American Ambassador.
And of course we know for a fact that the president went on an apology tour for a crappy anti-Muslim video, that is after he was done partying with Jay-Z and Beyonce.
Oh and lets not forget that while Bush hesitated for a staggering seven minutes at the news of the 9/11 attacks (which made headlines), Obama hesitated for an entire nights sleep before making a generalized, blanket statement on terrorism on the anniversary of 9/11.
One would think that after it was reported that fighting continued for seven hours it would be obvious that this was a little more than a random act of violence. Because it's such a common thing to be sporting a rocket launcher when you're hanging out at a "peaceful" protest.
I'm sure that the prez didn't sleep very well that night. Not because of the dying Americans, but most likely because he couldn't wait to hang out with his celebrity buddies. Oh the joy!Dying Americans? Since when is it a problem for our governments? It was scientifically proven that Sept 11 was premeditated and obviously you don't believe it.
Hitler said that "the greater the lie, the more readily it will be believed." It is exactly what happened.
Where are your evidence supporting the fact that Obama launched the attack?
Contrary to you, I believe that whatever colors float over the white house, Americans will die for private interests. The purpose of an American soldier is to be sacrificed. Just check our contemporary use of our army.Yeah, premeditated by Bin Laden.
You seem to be a little confused. I never once said Obama "launched an attack", I said it was a failure of leadership. Try to keep the crackpot conspiracy theories in your own yard.
You have a sick outlook on the men and women in our armed forces who put their lives on the line to uphold our very freedoms. They are more than political pawns, they believe in honor, courage, and loyalty. Something that sideline sitting, self righteous little wussies like you will never be able to fully comprehend because you've never known what life would be like without that banner of freedom that's been hanging over your head from the moment you were born into this world.
You asked me earlier where my voice was when 3000 Americans were murdered by Saudi terrorists. I'll tell you, I was at the demilitarized zone in South Korea ensuring the freedoms of a country that would otherwise be destroyed by a Communist dictator. So much for private interests. And thousands of American soldiers do the same thing every day while wussies like you sit back in your comfy domiciles and mock their existence.
No, not the popular liberal answer, just a repeat of the murderers justification (unless of course in your confused mind the perpetrators were liberals!)
Yeah, it's the popular liberal answer. I hear it from the left every time a Muslim decides to kill innocent civilians. Can't come to grips with the fact that they come from countries lead by violent extremists who hate America no matter what we do. Our constitution and way of life is in fundamental opposition to their beliefs and that's why their leaders are always chanting death to America, and provoking their people to cause destruction and death.
Next someone will say that they are violent because they are poor, which is the fault of the very leaders who blame all their problems on every other country.Just a reminder that it isn't all about you! This was a British soldier murdered on British soil and reported in the British media.
That's right it was a British soldier who was murdered by a Muslim extremist, and everybody just walked past them like a bunch of defenseless wussies.
And I was providing you with an example, I said earlier that they blame EVERYONE who disagrees with them.No you didn't, you claimed that it was a typical liberal reaction!
Doesn't it worry you that your country and mine are also funding these extremists in other countries?
Would be if it were true.... but even if it is.... it's been going on for generations.
Yes, I'm reminded of the rather different US reaction when reminded of their sponsoring of Irish terrorism down the centuries!
Well UV, it's certainly looking that way:
http://www.globalresearch.ca/arming-syr … ns/5325826
No, it isn't OK but it is pretty clear though.
My condolences to Mr Rigby's family. He was murdered for a delusional, selfish reason by poor excuses for human beings. As is generally the case with any murder.
9 minutes, 14 for armed police. I suspect London being f-ing hellacious to traverse by road had something to do with it.
Yes, it probably did!
Remembering as well that our police aren't routinely armed (by their choice) allow five minutes to draw arms.If the police don't want to be armed then more power to them, but they sure used those firearms when they arrived.
Well said, most people can't make it to the end of their street in 14 minutes, let alone 9.
It might have been better for the victim if they had been quicker, but when seconds count the police are minutes away.
You have to understand the nature of London traffic, it's gridlocked practically all the time. To arrive at the scene in 9 minutes, in London, takes some doing. And I'm no fan of our police and their recent antics. But credit where it's due.
I'm really not complaining about it I don't expect much from any department. I rely on my own personal protection and in the two circumstances it was needed it served me well.
Well that's good. We just have enough problems in this country. My personal belief, is that guns would only add to them. We have a different culture here, guns are used by criminals and gangs- we haven't been reared with them and their use for self protection. If we were to legalize gun ownership, most law abiding citizens would not want to possess one, because of the way we have been conditioned, it's different. It would probably just mean that more guns would fall into the wrong hands.
I can't really say anything about that, you are probably right.
Maxoxam,
The question of whether these cleaver-wielding jihadists (I believe that term applies here, right) acted on their own or were "planted" as part of a covert operation is a good one.
Whenever there is an act of "terrorism" a very logical question is -- who were they working for and who were they funded by and what is the real goal here?
I do not see the US and allies rushing into Syria on the basis of this action, however.
Where would the demand for revenge come from?
The British people?
The American people?
Congress?
I could get into some dangerous opinions here. But I won't. Out of respect for the fallen solder.Pretty funny how no one talks about the millions of Jewish and Christian terrorists just because we Westerners aren't the ones they're killing.
@Superkev
"He was murdered as a direct result of the UK's policies on immigration and gun control. One of them had a revolver and reportedly fired it at the police, resulting in him blowing his thumb off from what I read."
And this, is exactly why you should be more discerning when it comes to " from what I read"
The facts have yet to be completely established. If you're reading from a publication which "proffers" such evidence, then frankly, you have not been particularly discerning.- Brenda Durhamposted 10 years ago
0There may be a small minority of people who actually are "phobic" for no good reason.
But not the majority. Unless....of course, we're talking about far-Left liberals; in which case, it's pretty obvious that THEY are phobic about conservatives, hating them for no good reason at all; afraid of them! And why? For no good reason at all.
It's getting really old and really abusive, the way the "phobe" terminology is being used to attack decent patriotic Americans. And it looks like it's being applied in Britain. Maybe it has been all along, I dunno. But I do hear that Britain wasn't afraid to call the killing of that soldier what it was---------terrorism. What's wrong with America is that we have a phobic President and Cabinet who've perpetuated the idea that conservative America is "phobic", when in fact it is they who are irrationally afraid of conservatives! Case in point---the scandal where Holder okayed the secret investigation of the Fox reporter. Holder should be labeled "phobic" and thrown in jail for harrassing a citizen. Another case in point, something Obama tried long ago and got so much pressure he had to cancel it (supposedly cancel it anyway; who knows if he really did...)-----the "FLAGG" project, where he wanted people to basically profile their conservative neighbors and report on them! No one remember? How quickly we forget, when we're accused of hating Obama because he's black; how fearful we get, when we know we're gonna be accused of being prejudiced and phobic. But we're not phobic; there's very good reason to be afraid of someone with that much power who really IS phobic himself.
That "phobic" propoganda coming from the Left has succeeded in empowering terrorists, which has gotten a lot of innocent Americans killed so far, and left America as a whole taking the blame for it! The pervading "phobe" terminology used in attack-mode like most of it is, is hate speech itself, and considering the consequences it has heaped upon America, is inciting war and terrorism, and needs to be recognized and fought against for what it is-------intolerant hate speech & treasonous speech.Brenda, before we go any further, I'd like to see the evidence for the "small minority and the majority" that you claim. Frankly, your opinion is of little value in serious debate- unless of course, you can substantiate your claims citing an authoritative source.
It is your absolute right to have opinions, and the rest of us have the absolute right to dismiss them if they are unsubstantiated. That's not a liberal left or right issue, but the perspective of some who want to get past the complete and utter irrelevance of opinions- because we seek truth and facts.If the majority of Americans were Islamophobic, all Muslims (or the majority of them) would've already been harrassed, attacked, and run out of this Country. The shop you mentioned wouldn't have just had graffiti drawn on it and the windows broken out; the owners would've been harrassed or attacked or run out of the town.
And LOLOL don't try to say my opinion is of little value in a serious debate unless you count YOUR opinion of little value in a serious debate! LOL. You didn't substantiate your claims with "an authoritative source"! And I actually did!
Sure, you have the right to "dismiss" my opinions! I've already dismissed yours. Because yours are the type that are full of misleading sentences like "it's not a liberal left or right issue", and "we seek truth and facts". It most certainly IS a liberal Left-vs-Right issue! That IS the truth and the facts.
"Frankly", if you're gonna reply to my posts, it would show some evidence that you're looking for the "truth and facts" if you'd stop ignoring the truth and facts that are right in front of you.If the majority of Americans were Islamophobic, all Muslims (or the majority of them) would've already been harrassed, attacked, and run out of this Country. The shop you mentioned wouldn't have just had graffiti drawn on it and the windows broken out; the owners would've been harrassed or attacked or run out of the town.
Who said they weren't? Or are you reading between the lines again and deciding what happens before you're even presented with the evidence? Odd, you also appear to think that attacking one's property and writing racist slogans on walls is not harrassment. Can I ask, if they did the same to your property would you argue that you had every right to shoot them for that offence?
And LOOL don't try to say my opinion is of little value in a serious debate unless you count YOUR opinion of little value in a serious debate! LOL. You didn't substantiate your claims with "an authoritative source"! And I actually did!
And LOLOL, I know that my opinion is of little value in serious debate, as it should be, which is why I made the point of stressing that it was "just my opinion" but there again, I didn't claim to speak for majorities or minorities. You did! Where's your data?
Brenda, not sure how to put this to you, but I didn't make any claims! Bit embarrassing I know, yikes!. But when I discussed what had happened to my neighbours and friends, I made a point of saying "this is just my opinion" I didn't discuss a majority or minority, but talked about factions and "some" Muslims- See the difference? I didn't claim that a "majority are this" or a "minority are that" If you are going to make claims and profess to having knowledge about what the "majority or minority" of Muslims do or don't do, you need to back that up.
Sure, you have the right to "dismiss" my opinions! I've already dismissed yours. Because yours are the type that are full of misleading sentences like "it's not a liberal left or right issue", and "we seek truth and facts". It most certainly IS a liberal Left-vs-Right issue! That IS the truth and the facts.
Oh, I will dismiss your opinions, most people will dismiss opinions- it's the way it is. And I'd certainly expect any right minded individual to dismiss my opinions, which is why I don't talk about "majorities" unless I have the data to back what I say. Ok, Brenda, if it makes you happy it's a left and right issue. That IS the truth and the facts, because you have said it is so. LOL.
"Frankly", if you're gonna reply to my posts, it would show some evidence that you're looking for the "truth and facts" if you'd stop ignoring the truth and facts that are right in front of you.
Frankly, if your gonna post opinionated nonsense, I will ask you to back up your claims. And if you want data from me to verify mine, then so be it. Little tip, always a good idea to ensure that I've made unsubstantiated claims first. I will always state if it's an opinion, or evidence which can be verified.
Accuse me of ignoring truth and facts when you present me with some, and well, I ignore them. Until that time, only your bias and ethnocentrism are stood before me. Deal with that!Easy.
We've established that neither of us likes the other's opinions.
So be it. I'm okay with that.
Until someone keeps talking about "phobes". Then it gets involved. Because I have a huge huge amount of evidence personally and via the stories of others on and off the internet to prove that MOST people who are accused of being "phobic" aren't phobic at all, and that it's tiresome and harrassing to constantly be accused of something that the accusers haven't even properly defined.
A phobia is an irrational fear of something or someone. There is nothing irrational about being fearful of the religion and institutions of people who are avowed members of a religion that has bred the mentality of the majority of the most horrific terrorist attacks on our soil recently, starting with 9/11.
AND there is huge National proof that our leader Obama is protecting Islamists at the sacrifice of American tradition and American life. Our soldiers were commanded to burn Bibles just so Islamic terrorists wouldn't be ticked off. An American Pastor who burned Korans (sp?) was harrassed and cautioned to NOT exercise his liberty to do so again on his own property, just so the Muslims (not just the avowed terrorists!) wouldn't be ticked off at the U.S. A man sits in prison right now because the Administration tried to blame the Benghazi terrorists' actions on an anti-Islam video he made.
So don't try to accuse me of not having facts to back up my opinions. Because if most Americans were as "phobic" as liberals claim conservatives are, there would be riots in the streets at this Administration's support of Islam while taking away the rights of others. It's a wonder it hasn't come to that yet! Maybe it should. Because his carp is getting soooo old. I wonder how long he can depend on patriotic conservatives to be tolerant of his carp? I wonder if they think the race card has no expiration date to common-sense Americans? Because it isn't just Obama that needs to resign for the betterment and security of this Nation; he needs to take his court jester Joe Biden with him, and his sidearm Hillary Clinton with him, and his buddy Holder, and his protegee Susan Rice, and the ditzy Pelosi, and the rest of his corrupt staff.A phobia is an irrational fear of something or someone. There is nothing irrational about being fearful of the religion and institutions of people who are avowed members of a religion that has bred the mentality of the majority of the most horrific terrorist attacks on our soil recently, starting with 9/11.
Well, firstly Brenda the term homophobe is quite clearly defined and has been for the longest time. It refers to an individual who is afraid of, OR, has contempt for, a gay or lesbian. The term phobe is equally well defined and refers to an individual who exhibits fear, aversion OR dislike of a particular object or person. Again, that definition has been around forever.
And as I said in an earlier post, those deeply affected by the atrocities of 9/11 7/7 or similar events have completely understandable fear or dislike, or both, of Muslims. And again, I said that wasn't irrational because it stems from pain and anger.
Brenda, the world is huge and the subject is huge. If you'd said, most people that I know are not homophobes or Islamophobes or whatever, that would make sense. But you can't say say that the majority of people arnt, because you don't know this to be fact at all- none of us do. And when it comes to people you've spoken to on the internet they could be anyone. If you've never met them you certainly don't know enough about them to make such claims.
You've lost me with the rest, I'm afraid- I can't comment on what is or isn't happening in the US- but I can when it's about what's happening in the UK- like the death of this soldier.I think most Americans were deeply affected by what happened on 9/11, we didn't have to lose someone for that to be true. I don't hate Muslims, I do hate terrorists who happen to be Muslim. I also hate the KKK, Nazi's, and green terrorists.
You know as well as I do that labeling someone as a "anyphobe" is simply a tactic to quell speech you dislike, it is an attempt to marginalize that person or group. The constant "you're a racist" for disagreeing with the president is the same thing.
It really doesn't work on most of us anymore it just aggravates us.Rather than being aggravated I simply find the accusation to have lost all meaning, when anything you disagree with a liberal about is deemed racist.
Don't believe in global warming? Racist!
Don't like the president? Racist!
Don't like expansion of government? Racist!
Don't like Abortion? Misogynist!
Don't agree with redefining marriage? Homophobe!
Call it terrorism? Islamaphobe!
You believe countries should have borders? Racist!
You like the second amendment? Racist!
You like the first amendment? Racist!
Blah, blah, blah...If you're going to globalize, at least be consistent.
The answer to all of your queries should be "racist" shouldn't it?
Why start and end your list with "racist" but break your perfectly good pattern in the
middle with terms that actually have some relationship to the subject matter?I hate it when I bring up a valid point
I'm accused of being a liberal
a socialist
siding with extremists
I have an agenda
but most of all
I hate it
when I'm called
a knitpicker
for raising a perfectly
valid
point!But mostly, I simply find the accusation to have lost all meaning.
I think most Americans were deeply affected by what happened on 9/11, we didn't have to lose someone for that to be true. I don't hate Muslims, I do hate terrorists who happen to be Muslim. I also hate the KKK, Nazi's, and green terrorists.
I agree, I should have elaborated when I said traumatized. The world was in a state of shock, what right thinking individual could not see the footage of those people jumping from the towers and be totally shocked, saddened and disgusted. I think that's the difference, you hate terrorists who happen to be Muslim, or happen to be nazis or whatever. The group they belong to is secondary- it is the acts that they have committed that is in the forefront of the mind.
Although I don't disagree that labels can be used to censor. I've frequently been called an antisemite when I've criticized Israel for their treatment of Palestinians (I'm of Jewish decent, btw) But sometimes people are racist and are homophobes and Islamophobes- Not all, of course, but some. My son is also gay, he's been beaten up, called all the names under the sun because of his sexuality. Are these people not homophobes? If not, what are they?
Sometimes people do have an irrational fear OR dislike of other groups in society- I wish that was not the case but it is, and however much I might wish that was not the case, wishing does not make it so.
But I do agree that constructive criticism is not racist or sexist or any of the ists and phobes if it based on disagreement with policies etc. However, when it comes to the situation here, with this soldier, speculation is causing a lot of harm as we speak. Just today when I was driving I heard on the radio that attacks on Muslims have increased 5 fold since the events. Scaremongering, before we know the facts, is not helping anyone.
And, to explicate is not to justify- so I don't think it's wrong to analyse how our actions might help us push young, poor, uneducated men into the hands of extremists groups. Not because I'm saying that those who are guilty of such atrocities shouldn't be punished, they should- with the full force of the law, but because if we can understand this complex, historical mess that we find ourselves in, maybe we can, eventually, eradicate it.
Yesterday while I was reading le Monde what did I see that MI5 tried to recruit the London killer? Is it coincidental? What will be the odd that the Boston marathon killers being linked with the FBI and the London killer having been interviewed by MI5 and both actions from our service intelligence to end up by a bombing and a killing?Almost impossible and yet it happened twice a couple of weeks? Isn't it strange? It is to me.
Trust me, if the Mi's are involved, even if it comes to an inquiry of sorts, it will only result in "Lessons need to be learnt, we apologise"
Don't expect Mr and Mrs Average to question that, either. Sadly.
Is odd though isn't it? That so many extremists have been involved with the security services, have been watched for years, using extensive technology and surveillance, yet, still manage to carry out these atrocities?
The recently released movie "The Reluctant Fundamentalist" provides some insights into what makes jihadists tick.
Would you believe that this tragedy has sparked a political debate in this country? Could the murderers have been stopped if the "intelligence services " had been able to monitor their emails, aka, the snoopers charter?
This idea has been introduced previously but the govt. were "vetoed" by the coalition partners. Now, quite surprisingly (?), the party which wanted to introduce these reforms (the Tories) are arguing that they should be implemented.
So, basically, the intelligence services had contact with this man, were able to tap his phone (not legally of course but anyone can hack in the UK, it's the way it is) follow him, infiltrate his friends and family. But, they couldn't stop him. If only the snoopers charter had been passed!An excellent analysis of the situation here by Annie Machon, a former M15 intelligence officer:
http://anniemachon.ch/annie_machon/2013 … vious.html
Why can't these mideast countries just be happy America came to liberate them and accept democracy peacefully, with no struggle, like we did?
Seriously, I think part of this goes to the prevailing culture at the time (2005 -- support our troops, do not question what we are doing in Iraq).
But realistically, I know, and I think we all know this example of military "overreach" was not an isolated incident. We have an epidemic of depression and suicide in Afghanistan.
What exactly do you think our soldiers are seeing/participating in that breaks them so?Please enlighten me to all you know on the subject of Psychiatry.
There would be no point in that, Lie Detector.
As whatever I might know, or think I know, you know infinitely more.
I am certainly not going to introduce the differences between psychiatry and psychology.
That would be the quickest way to reduce this to global warming/ice age debate.That is where you are wrong, I don't claim to know anything about psychiatry or psychology. But it seems you do, so enlighten me.
I made a mistake I thought Spain would be where the next killing would be, it is to forget how stupid they are. After all, the western superpowers involved are the US, England and France. Did you read the last news? A French so-called northern African tried to slaughter a military man in a camera filled environment? Another coincidence? That the killings are perpetrated in countries that are involved in Syria indirectly and that are urging the UNO to give them the freedom to slaughter the Syrians? Too coincidental for my brain.
Then what does that mean? The presence of a pattern shows a conscious act from our governments to sacrifice people for their own interests or to be subservient to corporative interests. Instead of privileging the referendum to get our opinion (that will probably go against any military intervention since our people are suffering, the latest being the tornadoes in Oklahoma), they deliberately opted to attack a member of our, your community to score with Syria. They are deliberately instilling us fear and we are accepting it. When are we going to make them accountable for their sinister actions is the real question?Obama is our commander in chief therefore he launched the attack. Every document is signed by our president making him the executive power in any decision. You wish it was a crackpot conspiracy theory. Obama as the perfect puupet did not fail in anything. We are the idiots who believe that we are living in a democracy.
Your blah, blah about our army is for uneducated. Everybody knows that they are sacrificed for no real reason but economical and strategic gains. Which banner of freedom are you referring to, the one that will drone me if I disagree or think differently from your mass unique mind?
Where was your voice when the Bush administration killed 3000 innocent civilians? It doesn't bother you that they were Saudis and we invaded Iraq? It doesn't bother you that we are partners with the epitome of muslim radicalism? You see, your ignorance is speaking. Saudi Arabia endorses fundamentalism not Iraq.
If I am a wussie, you are a dog obeying barked orders. Freedom of South Korea. Sure, invading at the same time its market, imposing our interests in the region... Nothing new there. Have you ever seen a 7/11 in France? No. In South Korea? Plenty. Can you explain me the discrepancy?
What is your level of education?Now I know I'm talking to a crackpot. Allow me to educate you a little on military strategy. We go where the fighting is. During World War two did we send the ground troops to Japan after they bombed us? Nope, we went to Africa where the fighting was. For the same reason we went to Iraq and Afghanistan. Bin Laden killed three thousand of us one morning, and in response we knocked his teeth in, in Afghanistan. He was building himself a palace there, in Kandahar – did you know that? Bin Laden was building the palace that he would run the worldwide caliphate from, out in the open, in the middle of Afghanistan – so confident was he that we would turn tail and go home. Well, that was a bad call.
So bin laden decided to make Iraq the battlefield, and his commander of Al Qaeda in Iraq, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, pleaded for bin Laden to send him reinforcements from anywhere! since the Americans that were handing him his butt every day weren't behaving as advertised. And he did send them.
Al Qaeda may have lost 50,000 fighters in Mosul, and Fallujah, and Tikrit, and Basra, and Baghdad. Not in Disneyland, and not in the Mall of America. Mr. Obama, killing bin Laden was not the most significant milestone in the War on Terror, and he knows it. It’s just the only one that happened on his watch.
You wouldn't understand that kind of thing though because your head is so filled with nut job propaganda that you would have to travel a mile upward through a big dung heap in order to step outside of the loony tune box you climbed into.No, we did better in Japan. We nuked them. What a contribution to our history! Exemplary in our resume as a country!
Yes, go ahead enlighten me. In which fronts were we in WW2? What is the correlation between WW2 and now? If we participated, it is because our economy needed it, it is beacuse it was the end of the war, it is beacuse we imposed our Marshall plan...
Which country called us to intervene on their soil among the middle-easterns? I don't recall that turmoil existed in the Middle-East? TURMOIL CAME WITH US, DON'T LIE! You will say whatever to justify our actions and our killings!
The only facts I registered about Bin Laden is that he was CIA, that his family has close ties with Bush. So don't start your pseudo revelations about Bin Laden. Like Saddam Hussein, we did not put him at the top. No, we never do that! Just ask people from Southern America, or Africa, Asia... Which continent didn't we abuse yet?
When I listen to your rationale in your narrative, it reminds me of Goebbels's propaganda.Wow, the crackpot theories never end. So why are all of these Muslims in repressive regimes suddenly rising up for freedom and the right to vote? Why now, all of a sudden?
I'll tell you; It's because of the glimpse of freedom that all the Muslim countries saw that was provided by our military. But don’t take my word for it, ask them. People in Syria, Libya, Egypt, Iran and Yemen look around the Middle East and they find one Arab country where they can vote in free elections; one place, where the bloodiest dictator of them all no longer has statues on every corner; one place where freedom has a chance to grow. And that place is Iraq.
Alright so back to your goofball theories about Bin Laden being in the CIA, the president staging an attack against our own people, ferries and unicorns, and whatever mother goose rimes you want to spout out. People like you are why Libertarianism will never be taken seriously in this country. You dance on the graves of dead American civilians and military heroes. Have a nice day.Perfect demonstration of the complete and utter ignorance you are in over soooooo many issues. Turkey, Lebanon and Jordan were all democratic before the Iraq war.
Read a book, use google do something the utter lack of knowledge is just increasingly tragic.I'm talking about undemocratic dictatorships that were overthrown as a direct result of the war in Iraq. I never said it was the only place that democracy existed, however it is the one place that successfully changed for the better in recent history as a direct result. And people noticed that. They saw with their own eyes one of the biggest dictatorships in their region come tumbling down faster than the Berlin wall.
Firstly we installed Saddam Hussein in power. Secondly, Iraqi people are poorer now since we privatized their economy. Why do I know that? Why don't you?
Yeah, and I'm pretty sure there was a Democrat in office when they did it. And I suppose that their lives would be much better had that Republican president not undone what the Democrat did in the first place. O'h but their lives would be so much better with a crazed murderous dictator and his depraved family in power!
And don't assume I don't know something just because I haven't said it.To your contrary I hold both parties responsible for their coward actions. When I blame Obama for the Benghazi attack, you blame Iraq for Sept 11 instead of Bush. It is the difference between a rational mind and a propagandist mind. You are the perfect subject/tool of your puppeted government and I am the perfect subject to be framed by my government because of my independent thinking.
So far you said nothing that was relevant to the context. You speak like a tabloid, hammering mainstream propaganda.
By murderous dictatorship, I guess you were referring to the Bush dynasty! 12 years in total at the reins of the government who did better in the US? Are rigged elections synonymous with democracy? We are pointing fingers at other countries when there's a blatant fraud and we are closing our eyes when it comes to ours. What a country of hypocrits!A rational mind has reading comprehension skills. You are obviously lacking in that category as you have accused me of saying several things which I, never, said...
Interesting though, I would put you under the propaganda mind category seeing as how you have bought into the propaganda of other crackpots who think just like you.
Are you a Libertarian?So far I asked you questions about your historical facts and like most of them you remained speechless. Your interventions don't interest me because you don't think for yourself, and it is obvious that you are uneducated as for international matters.
All you have done is asserted ludicrous conspiracy theories that you probably got from watching too much Jesse Ventura and come to wild conclusions without providing a hint of evidence. While blurting out ignorant insults to the people who serve in our military to boot.
I would say that there is a huge difference between being educated and being indoctrinated, the latter of which you obviously have immersed yourself in. This may come as a shock to you but watching MSNBC and Al Jazeera news stations is not regarded as an official education in The United States, yet.
"When I blame Obama for the Benghazi attack, you blame Iraq for Sept 11 instead of Bush. It is the difference between a rational mind and a propagandist mind."
I don't think its rational to blame Obama or Bush for terrorists attacks, it is rational to blame those who attacked.Being rational means to use reason, if you don't know that why are you wasting my precious time?
You didn't use reason and to blame presidents for terrorist attacks is irrational.
Now you learned something so your time wasn't wasted.
Actually it was a Republican (Ford) under whom he was helped to become leader of the Baathists in Iraq and thus leader of the country when the Baathists came to power.
Also Reagan gave Saddam crazy amounts of weapons.When Hussein became President of Iraq Carter was President.
Yep, Reagan sold weapons to Iraq when Iraq was at war with Iran.Yup but the US had nothing to do with that, what we did do was make Saddam head of the Baathist movement, when they seized power obviously he became president.
If you say so, Fords last day in office was January 20, 1977, so it would be silly to blame him for Hussein becoming President in July 1979.
Ummmm... If I make you leader of a powerful and ruthless faction knowing there is a good chance that faction will seize power and then it does and you become the leader of the country is that not down to me?
Just because you aren't in office when something happens doesn't mean you aren't responsible for it.Ummm... what? "there is a good chance that faction will seize power" There is also a good chance it wont!
So? There is a good chance smoking won't kill you, it's still a dumb thing to do and something one should not do.
Yeah, whatever.
How did Ford make Hussein leader of the Baath party?The CIA under Ford used their connections and assassinations to make him leader and in exchange Saddam gave them information gained from interrogations for the Baathists (he was a torturer/interrogator before being leader).
He was also pretty high up on the food chain of the party since at least 1968.
But hey, it must be Fords fault.Not very he was fourth or fifth in line but yeah the CIA under Ford was what made him, a former torturer, the leader.
You have offered a plethora of proof, I just don't know how I could ever doubt you.
Have a nice day.Oh I see, I just assumed before you went ahead and started talking about something you would at least know the topic, I obviously gave you too much credit, there are plenty of great books and online sources on the rise of the Baathists and Saddam Husein I am sure you don't need me to find them for you. I recommend "Saddam Hussein: A Political Biography" by Efraim Karsh.
I'm going to rush right out and get it so I can regurgitate what it might say.
Or not
Conveniently skipping over the two Dems who actually put him in the office in the first place. Tisk, tisk. Cherry picking as usual.
Nope also false, several previously dictatorial nations which we Islamic (like Lebanon) had become democratic within ten years of the Iraq war.
"I'll tell you; It's because of the glimpse of freedom that all the Muslim countries saw that was provided by our military. But don’t take my word for it, ask them. People in Syria, Libya, Egypt, Iran and Yemen look around the Middle East and they find one Arab country where they can vote in free elections; one place, where the bloodiest dictator of them all no longer has statues on every corner; one place where freedom has a chance to grow. And that place is Iraq. "
All of this is false.
The Libyan revolution was not inspired by Iraq (ask any Libyan) it was over a housing crisis protest that was forcibly repressed.
The rest of the Arab Spring was inspired by Libya.
If you look at the Middle eastern Arab nations before the Arab spring there were already several democratic ones to give an example. So that was false too.
Again read a book before commenting with absolutely no knowledge.Actually the defeat of Hussein in Iraq was unique to the rest of the Muslim world, we didn't hear about these uprisings before the war but after the war. No not immediately, and of course no biased Muslim country would ever actually admit to the fact that they were helped by the United States. Of course not! Only Allah's chosen people could ever possibly help them out of their predicament.
Just the fact that about a dozen uprisings came out of the knowledge that one of the most repressed dictatorships in history could inspire millions of Muslims to break out of their repressive regimes as well.
I'm sorry it didn't end up the way you wanted it, with the Commies taking over Afghanistan. It's sort of another big kick in the face for the whole Communist thing, so I understand why you are so bitter about it.
No you mean YOU did not hear about these uprisings because YOU are ignorant. But there were plenty of them all the time.
A housing crisis has nothing to do with the Iraq war and that is what caused the Arab spring. If anything the Iraq war was a disincentive to rebel given that hundreds of thousands died in Iraq and the violence continues to this day, the economy has also collapsed and the average lifespan was reduced by 25%.
Repressive dictatorships in the area fall and rise near continuously.
Further ignorance displayed in the last sentence.
#1 Afghanistan was already communist before the Soviet invasion as a the communist party had seized power years before.
#2 I am not a communist and celebrated when the USSR collapsed (I was there when the war was torn down).
#3 It has absolutely nothing to do with any of the discussion.Of course there were, just not anything near the magnitude as what happened after Iraq was saved from a ruthless dictator. Incidentally, dictators aren't well known for telling the truth when asked about the welfare of their people. That might make them look bad.
Your "Facts" remind me of the facts that that come out of Michael Moore videos when he pathetically attempts to advocate socialized medicine.
I guess their truth is convenient enough. But to come and blatantly tell me that I am living in lala land it is daring, at least you gave him a good advice that he will never follow, hit books. To be honest I am tired to educate people or direct them to independent sources of info.
We can talk about history and the left and right all we want, bu the fact remains that whilst US, UK et.al are supposed to be fighting Al-Qaeda on our own turf, we're also funding those who have connections (and loyalties) to the very same group abroad.
Smell a rat anyone?Speaking of indoctrination, the army is the place to be isn't it? One, two, one, two. Self-degradation, denial of a personality, you melt in one common idiot, the collective mind (mind in this context is pleonasm obviously), a family that rapes its females, that poisons its military bases and keeps it secret...
I don't cry on their deaths because after all they go anywhere in the world with weapons (they don't bring cookies to children and technology to civilians), ready to slaughter or ridicule any autochtone they will meet on their way. I am going to cry because navy seals (the best killers in our army) are going to die, you are joking right.
You picked the army over any other uneducated jobs that were offered to you, that's all. If it's your own choice then it is worst since you consciously set yourself up to kill. You are a killing machine. Your superior says so and, you obey. If I have a gun and I am in Iraq and someone tells me to kill a family inside a building, I would say no.
MSNBC and Jazeera are for you. MSNBC is mainstream media and Al-Jazeera is Qatari, the same ones that are financing radical muslim brotherhood. You are the one who supports Saudi Arabia. I don't. You are supporting the ones who "orchestrated" Sept11, the Saudis, right? Therefore, you are a pro-muslim and an anti-America. Patriot is too vulgarized nowadays to be the appropriate word.The words of a coward hiding behind the face of a Syrian military general, and living off the dole in the good old U.S.of A. Sad and ironic.
You unmasked me. You are really good.
Once again, the same old cliche, you represent the good (hidden behind your soldier mask). It isn't without a good reason that this man killed a british soldier. You see he represented the good ones like you. The ones that butcher people and come come back home to abuse drugs in order to forget the atrocities that they've committed. Although the ones that I am depicting are humans. For the ones like you any evil has its rationalization, its justification.
In this manichean vision of your world, I would be evil because I don't think like you, because I am not a blind patriot like you, because I love too much life to remove someone's only one.
The coward is the one that carries ultra-sophisticated weapons against their stones!Yeah right, like the London killer who hacked an unsuspecting man to pieces in the name of Allah? Interesting that he makes claims to other countries yet he's just a piece of crap gang banger from Lambeth.
I think somebody slipped some of grandpa's cough medicine into your Virgin Mary.
Exactly like the Boston marathon bombing. Their uncle was working for the CIA and he was married with Graham Fuller's daughter. He was a former CIA official. Those kids were set up for us to believe the fairy about those "angry muslims who want our deaths". It is funny that all of them as I said it precedently, were/are connected with the intelligence services. Even the Merah affair/case in France. Too many coincidences to avoid a possible pattern. And if there's a pattern, there's a conscience behind the actions. Perfect puppets for our governments' misdeeds.
What? More violence from people who have nothing in common? What is it that makes some people want to blow stuff up? What could the common link possibly be? It couldn't be because they are Islamic extremists, because that's a peaceful religion.
Onusonus, you hide behind a shotgun in your own avatar, if that does not reek of coward I don't know what does. Sad and ironic, that that as a father of four you reduce the debate to your assumptions about the financial situation of another, because you have absolutely nothing further to offer.
Although that shouldn't surprise me. Aren't you the man who once thought that your hubscore went down because you'd written about Obama negatively?Actually I call that standing up for my constitutional rights. I think it is sad and biased that you point out my shortcomings while giving a pass to the blatant lies this man has been spouting out over the last two days.
And I have no recollection of saying that about my hubscore, although I'm sure it might be upsetting for the Obamabots to hear the truth about their dear leader. I personally could care less what my score is.I'll find the post for you, re your hub or hubberscore- it was funny, still makes me laugh
So you believe that you have shortcomings too, this we can agree on, most of us do. Still, you don't expand on why you appear to know so much about the financial circumstances of another. But there again, you don't know that much about his economic position, do you? In fact, you know absolutely nothing about his financial position. Why do you people feel that you can derail a debate by making such nonsense claims?
I don't give pass to blatant lies, there you go again trying to derail the points of the debate- quite funny though. Thanks for the free Saturday night entertainment.
I would hope that I've raised both my son and daughter to always question blind patriotism. I certainly didn't bring them into the world to be cheap, cannon fodder for those who would go to war on a whim, or a sexed up dossier. That said, I feel as saddened by the death of a solider as I do at the death of an Afghan, Syrian, Iraqi or Palestinian.
I'm also sick of the rhetoric "We go to war to keep you safe here" TPTB haven't done a particularly good job at keeping us safe. Perhaps the new rhetoric should be "Keep us safe here by minding your own business"
But minding their own business isn't that profitable! But what do they care, it isn't their sons and daughters on the front line, sat on buses rigged with explosives, or "calateral damage" in a drone strike."Keep us safe here by minding your own business", very good, it could be a nice slogan for a campaign of demilitarization.
I am not saddened given that to our contrary Afghans, Iraqis, Syrians... did not choose the occupation. It was forced upon them.
You are right, it is not their sons. If I have to go to defend my country, I want my president who is the commander in chief of the army to be in the frontline like Alexander the Great and co. If I have to defend my country it would be against the presence of their army on my territory not as you rightly said it upon a whim (Iran has the nuclear weapon).I am not saddened given that to our contrary Afghans, Iraqis, Syrians... did not choose the occupation
They didn't, and I hate what has happened to them in my name. Not in my name, I've always been against these occupations. As to the death of soldiers, you have to remember that in many ways they are also victims. Often these young men and women are jobless, uneducated and they do not realize what they are entering into to. They watch the news, are fed by propaganda, they believe that they are doing the right thing, even when it gets ugly.
If we begin to hate soldiers and not be saddened by their deaths, we have become what the real monsters want us to be; divided. Then they rule!
Remember that, then remind yourself that you're playing into their hands.
I use to feel for them but not anymore when I see Onusonus. He is the archetype of a soldier, nothing else matters but him and his squadron.
With the development of the internet nobody can stay indefinitely uneducated. It becomes their choice. They dream of killing muslims or whoever else is the convenient enemy in front of their consoles, then be my guest. It is the natural selection. Idiots have to die for intelligents to live. The less idiots a society will contain, the more opportunity to democracy we will give. Sad reality.I use to feel for them but not anymore when I see Onusonus. He is the archetype of a soldier, nothing else matters but him and his squadron.
With the development of the internet nobody can stay indefinitely uneducated
Yes, but the thing is there is an abundance of material on the internet. Someone who is so blind to what's going on around them is also blind to balance. They don't question or analyse.
It is the natural selection. Idiots have to die for intelligents to live.
I really disagree with this statement Max. Young, vulnerable girls in the Congo are raped and mutilated because men believe that they are in some way sub human, less than them. Children in third world countries slave in sweat shops and dangerous conditions because they are believed to be inferior by those who are out to make a profit at any costs. Aren't we better that, people may not be equally educated or equally discerning- but they all should all have the right to life.I know, there are two of you who agree with each other so I must be wrong. It must be hard to hear a different perspective on how things go down when you are an idiotic liberal ideologue. It's hard to think that Americans actually do good things in other parts of the world when you want so bad to abolish the whole concept so you can be a world citizen.
idiotic liberal ideologue
You'd have to ask a liberal, I'm not a liberal. It appears that in your world there are only two ideologies. The others are right, you should either read or get out more.
You really do talk nonsense. Afraid I'm not as patient as the others. I'll leave you with your two ideologies, after all that's all that there is: the world according to Onusonus. Shotguns, the bible and Liberals!Unfortunately for the latent democratic (as in democracy) system, most of the Americans "think" like you, therefore the step to democracy is slowed down. Don't they want us to think in unison? NEVER. Now that I tried independent news, I'll never go back to...?
You are wrong not because we are majoritary but beacuse you don't make sense, because you don't reason.
Americans do good? Last week USAID was expulsed from Bolivia because they tried to destabilize the democratically elected president. In which world are you living? Not mine for sure!Yeah forget about all that foreign aid we give to other countries. Just give them the free money and get out.
The question is what does it hide? Power of influence.
Why were we in Koweit? Why didn't we help the hutus and the tutsis to solve their difference? Why are we financing a devastated country if not to end up with contracts privileging the reconstruction? We give to receive. The World Bank, the IMF, USAID have their personal interests in the back of their minds. And you who thought we were giving away candies for free. Sorry to disappoint you!Well it isn't UNICEF we don't just hand out stuff for free. They have to learn to help themselves, and learn not to blow each other up as well. Obviously they have a long way to go. And sorry to disappoint you but the whole freedom thing comes with its risks.
Everybody else in the world blow each other up except western societies, why is it so? Which privileged genes do we have that they don't?
Josak was right, it's time for you to hit the books and read the world history and, then, will come as a revelation that most of the destabilization comes from our intempestive interventions.Usually spearheaded by Democrats. But I do think it is interesting that the other countries that we haven't intervened in are killing each other in the name of Allah (peace be upon him) just the same. With the exception that they are not as well funded of course.
So we've had sanctions against Syria since 1980 and we waited for them to ally Iraq and Iran for a gas pipeline to attack them because they were a threat to our nabusco.
What are WMDs?
Hezbollah's rockets, aren't they against the colonisers? What is so extraordinary? Is it what you call turmoil that necessitates our intervention? The IRA used bombings against the invaders, were we there? It was similar.As usual you can conjure a way to spin the blame for anything and everything going wrong in the world on America. Just like the Boston bombers, just like the murderers in London. Things that happened long before it became popular in the Muslim world to wage their "jihad" on the United States.
What is interesting is the killer in London apologized that the women and children had to see this, but they see it in his country all the time. So he admits that this is a bad thing and yet he brings it to another country, in the name of Allah of course.
So he comes from another country that has people being hacked up in the streets all the time and wants the UK to remove their government so he can replace it with a government that is like the one he has in his country. You know, where all the people are getting hacked up in the streets all the time.
Sounds like a great idea.Give back to Caesar what is Caesar's. Merah affair, France. The Boston Marathon, the US. The London killing, Great-Britain. You will notice that all three countries belong to the same axis, the NATO axis. All three countries knew about their religious radicalism and encouraged them implicitely in their inactions to prevent the events to occur.
When is long before? What are you talking about? The only offense a muslim country did to the US was to burn its flag.
The fact that you are lacking precision and examples to support your argument displays your lack of knowledge in the matter.It is mind boggling the level of ignorance you are putting out. Muslims do nothing to Americans? Really? They are constantly sending terrorists into our boarders to cause destruction. And what do they do after they kill 3000 Americans on 9/11? Those nice Muslims want to build a giant mosque down the street to commemorate their latest attempt at a global Caliphate. What did they want to call it again? Oh yeah, the Cordoba Mosque. You know, like the one that was built in Spain after the Islamic expansionists took over during their caliphate in 600 AD. Not exactly trying to strengthen the inner faith community relations.
What's ironic is the fact that the media treats the London attacker as if he were a loan wolf, and had he not made a reference to Allah, (which a New York times editor actually edited out in an article) the media would have defaulted him as a right wing Christian extremist, and he would have represented all Christians. They probably would have found a way to connect him to the Tea Party as well. Yet because he is an Islamic terrorist the liberal dominated media deems him as a loan wolf.
But the most mind blowing portion of the whole thing is the moral dyslexia that occurs when people call evil, good, and commit murder because they feel justified in doing so..But they don't treat him as a lone wolf! They hold him up as typical of all Muslims.
They are sending muslims. Those muslims penetrate our sophisticated security system, homeland security crap... Where are they when we need them? To scan us in the airport they are kings when it comes to real threats, they disappear? Isn't it strange to you? Obviously not! In my goverment I trust! In my CIA, FBI, NSA... I trust!
Graham Fuller ex CIA official is partenering with a Turkish muslim radical who lives with impunity in Ohio to create those pockets of "ANGRY MUSLIMS", it doesn't bother you? It is where you are a typical soldier, your faith is anchored in you that it is scary. No room for objectivity.
He's definitely not a loner since they ALL HAVE TIES with intelligent services. What is your answer about that fact? You always eluded it? It is time to face the music!
When we call soldiers, the good ones, isn't it what you do when you are sent at whatever international front war, kill people? Enough of your serenade.When I first happened to inadvertently notice this post, I must confess that I was slightly unsure as to what exactly it was that I was reading. After the subsequent examination of the original post and the ensuing commentary, I feel as if Onusonus and John Holden have both recently made logical and rational points, although they lie at somewhat opposite ends of the generalized worldview spectrum.
However, the comment directly preceding this reply cannot, in my opinion, be described as such.
maxoxam41, I do not wish to offend you, although I will trouble you for further clarification as to what exactly your main conclusions are actually maintaining. Please do correct me if I am wrong, however I am interpreting your musings as the assertion that "they" ( here I am understanding this term to refer to Muslim extremists; again please do correct me if I am mistaken), in their entirety, "ALL HAVE TIES" with intelligence* services? This clear deception would certainly entail a colossally absurd silence from the many mouths of a realistically impossible number of people. Additionally, intelligence services collect information, the CIA mostly abroad and the NSA in the digital field. The FBI isn't as much of an intelligence service so much as they are a specially trained and equipped police force. What need would any of these organizations have for this alleged reverse P.R. campaign that would require the clandestine murder of their own citizens? There will always be intelligence to be gathered regardless of whether or not terrorists are even a realistic and viable entity to be pursued.
Secondly, the TSA is not there to protect anybody from terrorist attacks, I personally have more confidence in my own ability to fend off a terrorist attack than I would place in the TSA. Furthermore, when exactly was the last time that the government "disappeared" (I assume you are implying that the entire government at every different level and branch is capable of disappearing) when a real threat has actually manifested itself?
The third point I want to raise is in reference to the odd claim that pockets of "ANGRY MUSLIMS" are created from thousands of miles away by the nefarious duo of a retired CIA official and his scheming companion the Turkish Muslim radical who somehow obtained whatever you are describing by "impunity". To begin with, no jury would, in reality, agree to grant this lofty and fictional legal status to some strange Turkish man, and no Supreme court justices would ever collectively agree to allow this obviously unethical situation to tarnish their legacies. Additionally, how exactly is it that these two single individuals have managed to "create" the "ANGRY MUSLIMS"? I'm somewhat unsure as to who exactly you believe to be the more mindless and gullible between the entire American public and the terrorists that can be created by two men. To answer your question, it would indeed bother me as well as the entirety of the sane population if this phenomena was occurring in reality. As a final point concerning this segment of your argument, you neglected to provide any credible evidence or even make an attempt to legitimate any of it. Therefore there is no "fact" to be answered.
The final portion of your statement that I will comment on is deeply disturbing. I sincerely cling to the hope that you do not equate the wartime killing of an enemy combatant with the murder of an innocent person at the hands of a terrorist. Personally, I would rather have everything I consider important to me protected from destruction at the hands of an individual I have never met, even if it requires that a terrorist has to die in order for this security to be recognized. If "angry Christians" were traveling to other countries and becoming radicalized, blowing innocent civilians apart and brutally stabbing soldiers for the simple crime of having made that career choice, I'm supremely confident that they would be hunted down and fully prosecuted by their home country, and nobody would say a word when they would be publicly hanged. There is literally no such thing as a Christian holy war in contemporary society, which can also be said of the majority of religions. If this was ever attempted, the public outcry would be so great that the potential conflict would instantly be shut down, as in the case of the Waco shootout. That is the only way to ought to ensure that instances resembling what I have just described are not repeated, however the reciprocal of this fictional scenario is not sufficiently understood. Individuals both abroad and domestically seem to get caught in a morally condescending and apparently addicting trend of criticizing the U.S. for whatever action we as a nation decide to take, which leads to my conclusion.
After growing up hearing about all the worldwide, indiscriminate, and shockingly violent crimes including the topic of this hub, I have noticed the trend of many people responding with haughty finger-pointing at the victims of the crime. The reason that war is waged on radical Muslims is the fact that they murder innocents, not because they choose to pervert a sound religion with a vast majority of peaceful followers. There is absolutely no obligation that the U.S. or any other democratic and civilized country must adhere to that is based on the personal preferences of foreigners or the soundless and inefficient doctrine of international law. I find it more disturbing that one would concoct such an elaborate scheme to incriminate the very people who dedicate their lives to protecting them in order to protect the moral integrity of those who would not hesitate to kill civilians in the name of a false deity that, were it indeed a true divine entity, would allow it's followers to senselessly murder anybody who chose to exercise their freedom to chose what is considered by many to be the most important personal commitment in their life. The actual religion of Islam proclaims no such doctrine.
I honestly hope I did not offend you maxoxam41, as you have the right to hold this opinion. However, I urge you to listen to reason regarding important world matters such as this. In agreement with you, I don't hold the highest opinion of the government either, and don't support any vast expansions of their power over the individual citizen. However, they certainly will never kill me for disagreeing with their religious views, and I appreciate that they will do all that they can to ensure that nobody else ever does.As I said it, they were all in touch with their intelligence services. Nobody tracked them given their backgrounds... Either our intelligence services are incompetent, either they were working for them. Can someone explains me the discrepancy?
Then if the TSA is not there to protect us, why are they pretending to care with their security measures (scanning, "dangerous" objects forbidden...)?
In using disappearing, I was referring to our police, intelligence service... Where are they when we need them the most? They disappear. Nothing new there! Unless they fomented it.
"Angry muslims", the problem is that an independent journalist investigated him. So don't come and moralize us. You REALLY think that it is impossible for a US intelligence official to bribe and infiltrate a radical muslim and use him? Where are you from? Our planet? No disrespect, but you are naive. If you need to question someone on our implication with this radical muslim why don't you read F.William Engdahl's article on the subject? You want facts, once again read him.
Listen, that is what our soldiers are doing blowing up innocents and it doesn't bother you, does it? And they all are good christians!
There's no muslim holy war neither. It was created by our governments. The only countries that are extremists are Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Bahrein (?), Iran and Pakistan, with a theocratic weight hanging over people's heads. What we know for sure is that the first two countries that I mentioned are financing the spread of radical islam in Arab countries that haven't a muslim brotherhood branch ruling behind the scene. And those countries are OUR FRIENDS. What does that mean? That it is convenient for our cause.
Yesterday, I saw a movie called "the 3 days of the condor" by Pollack and when the protagonists tried to understand the reason why all his colleagues were killed, he alluded to an invasion of the middle east. The movie was made in 1975. Does it mean that already it was in our governments' minds? I guess the idea did not come from the Bush administration.
So those so-called muslim djihadists are ready to attack us in order for us to ruin their country, to retaliate? They are dummies indeed. You REALLY think so? Then why don't we strike to the core i.e. Saudi Arabia?
You have to acknowledge at least that we are always involved when it comes to destabilize a countryThanks for the reply. First, what evidence points to the fact that "nobody tracked them given their background?" I'm unsure as to what exactly this means. I see no backing evidence that would appropriately lead to the conclusion that our intelligence services are "either incompetent or they [I'm assuming you're talking about the terrorists here] are working for them". The TSA is there to protect the safety of flights, but clearly they are not meant to defend against violent or aggressive actions given the nature of their examinations.
Furthermore, intelligence services, as I previously mentioned, are intended to gather intelligence rather than defend against foreign intrusion. The police are almost always there after the attacks occur. I don't think that it is impossible for an intelligence official to do what you have described, I simply cannot find any credible evidence that indicates such events have occurred (no offense taken, by the way).
Regarding the extremist countries, it seems to be the case that it is radical individuals rather than entire countries that are carrying out these violent attacks, so I don't see how this claim is relevant.
If you truly believe that there is no radical Muslim holy war instigated by individuals acting completely independent of prior contact with western civilizations, then you sir, are naive (no disrespect intended). This is a well-documented phenomenon.
I don't think that the claim can be made that the entirety of our military personnel are "good Christians", but accidental killing of innocents in pursuit of legitimate targets is far less offensive to me than the intentional and deliberate targeting of innocents in order to produce shock and terror.
Regarding the article, I am unable to find the specific publication, would you mind posting a link?
Finally, I don't have to acknowledge that we are always involved when a country becomes destabilized, as there is neither a causal connection between the two or credible and indisputable evidence that indicates this to be the case.Accidental killing? Is it bad faith or naivety? When soldiers go to Afghanistan they are killing accidentally. When whoever schmuck uses drones against civilians it is accidental too? Too many accidents for it not to be a pattern. A pattern for murder.
How do you define "legitimate targets"? The ones that resist us?
Many people complained about the apathy of the FBI or CIA for that matter, on tv. Don't you remember?
How will an ordinary man find evidence that will be classified for 50 or 75 years?
Aren't Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Israel financing the extremists in Syria? Therefore it means that countries are involved because their interests are at stake!
It is well documented? By who? Westerners? It would be difficult for me to believe in their objectivity.
His article :
Boston and the CIA ‘Snafu’: The grey eminence behind Turkey’s Erdogan and the AKP
by F. William Engdahl
In the first part, geopolitical analyst William Engdahl discussed the role of CIA’s Graham Fuller in creating the policy of using angry Jihadist Muslims as trained terrorists in Afghanistan and elsewhere against the Soviet Union. Herein—largely drawing on the revelations made by FBI whistle-blower Sibel Edwards—Engdahl throws the spotlight on the entire CIA-sponsored Islamic Jihadist operations run through Fetullah Gülen across Turkey into Central Asia and Russia and China.
Voltaire Network | Frankfurt (Germany) | 25 May 2013
Part I: Graham Fuller, Uncle Ruslan, the CIA and the Boston Bombings
Graham Fuller (foreground) and Turkish Muslim guru Fetullah Gülen who has dark ties to CIA and fanatical Jihadist groups worldwide.
The open press statement of denial by senior reportedly former CIA official Graham Fuller in April of a link between the Boston Bombings and the CIA, labeling the reports “absurd,” may go down in history as one of the worst intelligence blunders [1] in the past century. The public admission by Fuller, on a website reported tied to the CIA, of his relationship to the Uncle of the alleged but not ever convicted Boston bombers opened a can of worms the CIA might well wish never had been opened.
The public admission by Fuller, on a website reported tied to the CIA, of his relationship to the Uncle of the alleged but not ever convicted Boston bombers [2] opened a can of worms the CIA might well wish never had been opened.
A deeper look into Fuller’s role reveals him to be a key figure in what FBI whistle-blower Sibel Edmonds terms American Deep State rogues. Edmonds worked as an FBI translator from Turkish, Azerbaijani and Farsi languages during and after September 11, 2001 when she uncovered damning email and other evidence of criminal networks linking the actors of 9/11, drug networks out of Turkey and terrorists in and around Al Qaeda together with senior Pentagon and other US Government officials. [3]
Fuller, A Deep State Rogue
As later identified, among the people uncovered by Edmonds’ translation efforts at FBI were notorious neoconservative Richard Perle, Iraq war architect who headed Bush’s Defense Policy Board advisory committee in 2001; Douglas Feith, neocon Under-Secretary of Defense under Bush-Cheney; Anwar Yusuf Turani [4], key figure in the anti-Beijing Uygur separatist operations under the name East Turkistan National Freedom Center in Washington DC. East Turkistan is their name for China’s Xinjiang Province where Uygur riots took place several years ago. Turani modestly calls himself President-in-exile, East Turkistan (Xinjiang), though it’s by no means clear who if anyone elected him.
Whistleblower Sibel Edwards has revealed extraordinary information on the U.S. government’s support for international terrorist networks and organised crime. She was described as "the most gagged person in the history of the United States" by the American Civil Liberties Union.
In her classified translations Edmonds discovered that a criminal network had penetrated the highest levels of the US Government including Pentagon and FBI, and were engaged in illegal sales of weapons, including nuclear, of drugs and more. Criminal activities were being protected by claims of State Secrets, she asserted. Repeated attempts to call attention inside the FBI to what she was convinced was a conspiracy against the United States from within came to no avail. Her gripping account to bring attention to an alarming rogue network inside Washington is the subject of her autobiography, Classified Woman – The Sibel Edmonds Story. [5]
Attorney General John Ashcroft went all the way to the Supreme Court to muzzle her under a little-used Doctrine of State Secrets. Edmonds, suffering under an unprecedented Bush Administration gag order, was banned from revealing the complicity of high-ranking US and Turkish figures uncovered by her and duly reported at FBI before she was fired in 2002 for “blowing the whistle.” She partly got around the Government gag by posting photos with no comment on her website. Others filled in the names. [6]
Graham Fuller was one of the 21 American Deep State rogues Edmonds posted.
In 1995, according to investigative journalist Daniel Hopsicker, the uncle of the alleged Boston bombers, Ruslan Tsarnaev, “incorporated the Congress of Chechen International Organizations in Maryland, using as the address listed on incorporation documents 11114 Whisperwood Lane, in Rockville Maryland, the home address of his then-father-in-law.” [7] Father-in-law was Graham Fuller whose daughter was married to Uncle Ruslan.
Chechnya, an autonomous province of Russia deeply involved in oil pipelines from the Caspian Sea, has been the scene of Islamic jihad terrorists since the dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991. In 1995 when Uncle Ruslan founded the Congress of Chechen International Organizations from Graham Fuller’s home, the Islamist Jihad terror war against Moscow was raging full-force in Chechnya. Putin and Russian intelligence have repeatedly claimed the terrorism was being fed from outside.
As more is coming out on the role of Fuller, the evidence points to the conclusion that the Chechnya terrorists were also a project bearing the footprints of the “former” CIA political Islam expert, Graham Fuller. By 1988 Fuller had formally moved from a very senior post at CIA to the neo-conservative think tank, RAND Corporation, where he officially worked on the “Middle East, Central Asia, South and Southeast Asia, and problems of ethnicity and religion.” [8]
While at RAND Fuller played a key role gaining asylum for a Turkish national in the USA. Fetullah Gülen, a Turkish national who was forced to flee in 1999 and seek asylum, won his US residence permit due to the intervention of two senior CIA or former men. One was Graham E. Fuller. [9]
Foreign Policy Journal describes the role of Fuller and the CIA in getting indicted Turkish fugitive Gülen asylum in the USA: “Fethullah Gülen became a green card holder despite serious opposition from FBI and from Homeland Security Department. Former CIA officers (formally and informally) such as Graham Fuller and Morton Abromovitz were some of the prominent references in Gülen’s green card application.” [10]
Jihad Spreads to Central Asia
From his new luxurious heavily-guarded estate in Saylorsburg, a remote part of eastern Pennsylvania, Gülen launched a series of fundamentalist Salafist mosques and madrasses, not only in his native Turkey where he was the alleged power behind Turkey’s AKP regime of Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, himself a product of Gülen’s schools, but across the Islamic regions of Central Asia as they separated from the Soviet Union in the chaos after 1991. [11]
According to Edmonds, an authority on the subject, “US Islamization Operations in Central Asia via Gülen started in late 1997, early 1998. That brings me to …Graham Fuller.” [12]
Fethullah Gulen, lives in Pennsylvania. From there he runs a $25 billion international network. He is tied to hundreds of Gulen charter schools in the United States itself, 36 of which are located in Texas alone.
A memoir by former head of Turkish intelligence, Osman Nuri Gundes, claims that Fethullah Gülen’s worldwide Islamic movement based in Pennsylvania has been providing cover for the CIA since the mid-1990s, and that in the 90s, the movement “sheltered 130 CIA agents” at its schools in Kyrgyzstan and Uzbekistan alone. [13]
Gülen schools in Russian Chechnya and Dagestan regions, both locations of fanatical Jihadists since 1991, were ultimately banned by Putin. The Russian government has banned all Gülen schools and the activities of the Gülen-linked Nurcu sect in Russia. Over 20 Turkish followers of Gülen were deported from Russia in 2002-2004. In 1999 Uzbekistan closed all Gülen’s Madrasas and shortly afterward arrested eight journalists who were graduates of Gülen schools, and found them guilty of setting up an illegal religious group and of involvement in an extremist organization. In Turkmenistan, government authorities placed Gülen’s schools under close scrutiny and have ordered them to scrap the history of religion from curriculums. [14]
Responsible Turkish journalists I’ve met with relate that Gülen-loyal police tied to Edrogan’s AKP have infiltrated the Turkish police, intelligence services and other key state institution and are systematically arresting, purging or silencing all nationalist military, trade union and other secular figues opposed to creation of an Islamic Sharia state in Turkey, uprooting ninety or more years of Kemalist legal foundations. More than one hundred Turkish journalists have been arrested for writing critically about the actions of Gülen’s AKP.
Gülen’s public profile is as a humble, deeply spiritual Imam of love and brotherhood. His record in practice is anything but. Gülen once stated, “You must move in the arteries of the system without anyone noticing your existence, until you reach all the power centers, until the conditions are ripe." Sounds a bit like Lenin in the old days. Certain networks in Washington including people in and around Fuller obviously have no problem with that.
Why would the CIA and US agencies want Central Asia? As Obama adviser, Zbigniew Brzezinski, notes in his now-famous book, The Grand Chessboard, “For America, the chief geopolitical prize is Eurasia...America’s global primacy is directly dependent on how long and how effectively its preponderance on the Eurasian continent is sustained…It follows that America’s primary interest is to help ensure that no single power comes to control this geopolitical space and that the global community has unhindered financial and economic access to it."
Washington has used Turkey and the AKP fundamentalist networks of Gülen to wreak havoc across the post-communist oil and mineral-rich regions of Central Asia. Graham Fuller’s foot prints are all over those covert operations as are Fetullah Gülen’s. In 2008 Fuller published a book titled, “The New Turkish Republic: Turkey as a Pivotal State in the Muslim World.” As Sibel Edmonds describes, the process involved using Turkey with assistance from ’actors from Pakistan, and Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia’ as a proxy, which in turn used Bin Laden and the Taliban and others as a proxy terrorist army before 9/11. [15]
Edmonds notes regarding US operations in Central Asia, “This started more than a decade-long illegal, covert operation in Central Asia by a small group in the US intent on furthering the oil industry and the Military Industrial Complex, using Turkish operatives, Saudi partners and Pakistani allies, furthering this objective in the name of Islam.” [16]
Her middle name suggests a reference to her father’s CIA posting in Turkey.
What did Uncle Ruslan Tsarnaev, uncle of the Boston alleged bombers do when he was married to Graham Fuller’s daughter? Ruslan worked for companies connected to Halliburton, doing oil deals in the Caucasus and as “consultant” for the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) in the former Soviet Republic of Kazakhstan. Russia barred USAID from its soil in late 2012, alleging USAID together with CIA was attempting to influence the internal political processes in the country. [17]
Some are beginning to ask whether the Boston bombing might have been a deception operation carried out by the Rogues associated with Graham Fuller and the network within the CIA and Pentagon, to make it appear Putin was behind the ghastly events. In any case, when Graham Fuller went to the press to publicly denounce CIA links to the Tsarnaevs he made what is likely to go down as one of the greatest snafus in US intelligence history. He lost his cool, and with it, has put the spotlight on the entire CIA-sponsored Islamic Jihadist operations run through Fetullah Gülen across Turkey into Central Asia and Russia and China.
F. William Engdahl
F. William Engdahl
US-German author and analyst of geopolitical and economic issues. His newest book is Myths, Lies and Oil Wars. Earlier works include A Century of War : Anglo-American Oil Politics and the New World Order (2011, republished in a new edition) and Gods of Money: Wall Street and the Death of the American Century (2010).
[1] Laura Rozen, "Former CIA officer: ‘Absurd’ to link uncle of Boston suspects," Agency, Back-Channel Al-Monitor, April 27, 2013.
[2] Laura Rozen, "Former CIA officer: ‘Absurd’ to link uncle of Boston suspects, Agency," Back-Channel Al-Monitor, April 27, 2013.
[3] Daniel Hopsicker, "Boston bombers’ uncle married daughter of top CIA official," April 26, 2013.
[4] See "The Government-in-Exile of East Turkistan Republic"
[5] Sibel Edmonds, Classified Woman – The Sibel Edmonds Story, First Edition, 2012.
[6] Sibel Edmonds, "Sibel Edmonds’ State Secrets Privilege Gallery."
[7] Daniel Hopsicker, Op. Cit.
[8] 2006 Campagna-Kerven Lecture Series, Speaker Bio - GRAHAM E. FULLER.
[9] Emine Dilek, "The Tale of Uncle Tsarnaev CIA Chief Graham Fuller and a Turkish Islamist Who Lives in USA," progressivepress.net, April 27, 2013.
[10] Sibel Edmonds, "Turkish Intel Chief Exposes CIA Operations via Islamic Group in Central Asia," boilingfrogspost.com, January 6, 2011.
[11] Pelin Turgut, The Turkish Imam and His Global Educational Mission, Time, April 26, 2010.
[12] Sibel Edmonds, Op Cit.
[13] Ibid.
[14] Ibid.
[15] Sibel Edmonds, cited in "The Turkish Lobby, the Neocons, and the Crusade to Free the Ergenekon Terrorists," rastibini.blogspot.de, December 15, 2008.
[16] Luke Ryland, "Court Documents Shed Light on CIA Illegal Operations in Central Asia Using Islam and Madrassas," lukery.blogspot.de, July 10, 2008.
[17] Emine Dilek, Op. Cit.Reasonably well argued, but it still doesn't prove the validity of any of those claims. Additionally, you left some points unanswered.
Which points are unanswered? What does reasonably well-argued mean? Are you referring to my points or the journalist's? If you refer to his claims, don't you think that he researched it?
The points that I made in my original two comments are not unaddressed, but also are not answered. By reasonably well-argued, I mean that the article you provided exhibited a viewpoint that could potentially be true, but simply isn't proven.
The journalists you mentioned all made certain claims about Fuller's role in an alleged internal security nightmare along with other conclusions, but none of these supposed facts are legitimized beyond the shadow of a doubt, which means that the majority of them are simply what they appear to be: Claims.
Regarding the question of whether or not the journalist researched the subject, there honestly isn't enough evidence in what you have provided to indicate that their research was accurate or factual. It comes down to the radical claims of a few articles versus a logical and widespread viewpoint that is testable.Since you are an expert, or at least you have more knowledge than the author of the article, I guess you will enlighten us as for the "supposed facts", and obviously you will bring us the proofs that the journalist failed to bring or are you fabulating?
I never claimed to be an expert, and there is no need to have more knowledge than the author to point out the fact that none of the claims he made have been truly legitimized or proven beyond any reasonable doubt. A statement that hasn't been proven to be true cannot be considered a fact and that is why they're supposed facts rather than actual facts. Rather than attempting to prove a negative, I will simply point out that the journalist did not substantiate his claims sufficiently.
Indeed, you need to have more facts to dare oppose an opinion. If you agree that as a journalist he has access to more info, to more facts then on which ground are you building your case against him?
Who shall make it authentic for you to believe it? The government that is lying to us? The media that has its own agenda? I just want to understand your logic.I don't think that journalists are typically privy to any secrets above what the sources intend to release to the public anyway. I'm not building a case against him, I'm just saying that nothing is conclusive and unmistakeably true beyond the shadow of a doubt. As a journalist, would he not be part of the media that you even admitted has its own agenda? The claims being proven beyond the word of a conspiracy theorist would authenticate this for me, but that has not happened.
What? Independent does not equal more credible and the contrary doesn't have to be substantiated in order for the matter we are discussing to not be credible. Furthermore, I'm not sure what news network you have been watching, but CNN and MSNBC have agendas that could hardly be categorized as neoliberal or Zionist... Additionally, I'm sure the South Koreans, South Vietnamese, the Kurds, and any Muslims that are truly against the radicals were more than happy to have us intervene in those situations... What do you mean by "overthrow" those countries? Overthrowing is what we did to Japan, staging coups is overthrowing a certain party that may be in power. Nobody forced the Iranians to take and hold innocents hostage either, and neither did anybody force the corrupt parties in South America to commit human rights violations, so by that logic we are not to be blamed.
Exactly. It is clear that there is an anti-American impulse here; an anti-American impulse that willfully refuses to acknowledge anything good that the US does and willfully refuses to acknowledge anything bad that any other country---particularly radical Islamist countries and/or radical Islamist actors or agents---both government and non-government.
Facts do not matter. Information does not matter. Evidence and documentation do not matter.
All that matters is the anti-American agenda.
We can amuse ourselves, I suppose, in the knowledge that only in America would such anti-government speak be tolerated. In the Islamist regimes and worlds championed here, such speak would surely result in punishment if not death.Because FACTS matter that a global anti-Americanism is born. You can't insult people that are more educated than the majority to agree with America if evidence show the contrary. Since most of the media circus is led by neoliberals and Zionists, it implies bias.
America builds its own path. Nobody forced us to go to Vietnam, Korea, Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan, nobody forced us to overthrow Iran, Chile, Argentina...Oh, dear.
Looks like we've got one of those people on these boards.Haha I believe we may have disagreed before, but Zelkiiro, thank you for being another voice of reason. Very encouraging to see.
Oh dear, it looks like we are having one of those people too on board?
Do you understand how it sounds when I project your sentence? Someone who has nothing to say. If it is so don't waste yours and my time.
More projecting, more lies. I've never dreamed of killing Muslims. Your assumptions are dead wrong as usual.
Related Discussions
- 41
Whole life terms, against human rights or not?
by karl 10 years ago
I see the European court has once again ruled that the UK is in breach of the European human rights act.http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-23230419Surely some crimes are so heinous that the perpetrator should be locked up forever for public safety?
- 34
Are we going to attack Syria to make Obama look good?
by Cassie Smith 10 years ago
Are we going to attack Syria to make Obama look good?As if Obama can't get any lamer. He got himself into hot water by talking ignorantly about attacking Syria. He was so stupid that he didn't get the support he needed either domestically or internationally before he beat the war...
- 42
Syrian dead children identified!
by Deforest 10 years ago
According to my source of information, those children were the ones who were kidnapped by djihadists. Experts are stating that they didn't die from sarin attacks since the symptoms don't correspond. In one word, we armed those dogs that killed those innocent angels. And God bless America right?...
- 35
Is President Bush Ironically Responsible for ISIS Attacks in Iraq?
by Scott Belford 9 years ago
One of President Bush's arguments for invading Iraq was the strong Hussain-al Qaeda connection. The anti-Iraq invasion group said there was only very skimpy evidence of that and much stronger evidence that such an arrangement couldn't exist;. After several extensive post-war...
- 8
The Syrian Crisis
by Chad Bunch 10 years ago
What do you think the level of involvement, if any, that the US should take in Syria? Should we launch a missile strike immediately? Should we make sure that the Assad regime was truly involved? Or should we stop playing Empire and stay out of other countries affairs?
- 65
How many more murders do we have to see for people to realize that they need God
by Juan Rivera 11 years ago
How many more murders do we have to see for people to realize that they need God